From: MICHAEL SPITZER 
Subject: IUFO: Do We Know A Few Of These, OR WHAT?: Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
 (fwd)
Date: 13 Mar 1999 01:01:58 -0500
To: iufo@world.std.com, starfriends@esosoft.com


->  IUFO  Mailing List


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 07:12:20 -0800
From: philately@GEOCITIES.COM
Subject: [CTRL] Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

  Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
  


1.  Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what
you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,
and you never have to deal with the issues.

2.  Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues
and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic
as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.
This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3.  Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing
all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and
wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of
truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a
silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the
facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate
the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a
"wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4.  Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make
yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up
an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation
of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the
weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance
and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the
charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding
discussion of the real issues.

5.  Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is
also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other
methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents
with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal",
"left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals",
"militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates",
and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear
of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6.  Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your
opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works
extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon
without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an
accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never
answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the
opponent's viewpoint.

7.  Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so
taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden
personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and
forces the accuser on the defensive.

8.  Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself
with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say
it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.

9.  Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is
offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any
credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a
point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum
effect.

10.  Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of
the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high
visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or
were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have
your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with
early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent
charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed
as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with
the original source.

11.  Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor
matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and
"confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight,
was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to
blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities
which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf,
later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for
"coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without
addressing more serious issues.

12.  Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella
of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and
events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This
causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual
issues.

13.  Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way
that forbears any actual material fact.

14.  Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring
opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15.  Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires
creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency
conclusions in place.

16.  Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it
is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17.  Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the
other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning
attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially
well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic
and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing
more key issues.

18.  Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't
do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look
foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material
somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the
issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional
response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by
then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19.  Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is
perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim
the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his
disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely
destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to
categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid
sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any
meaning or relevance.

20.  False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or
clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent
presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or
impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be
easily separated from the fabrications.

21.  Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open
discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are
required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you
own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no
useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to
subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this
technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also
be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is
achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22.  Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),
group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing
to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social
research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if
you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23.  Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be
working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create
bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the
multitudes.

24.  Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail,
consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive
solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely.
This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or
destruction of their character by release of blackmail
information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or
other threats.

25.  Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise
overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

=================================================================
           Kaddish, Kaddish, Kaddish, YHVH, TZEVAOT

  FROM THE DESK OF:                    
                      *Mike Spitzer*     
                         ~~~~~~~~          

   The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
       Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================



-> Send "subscribe   iufo " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: MICHAEL SPITZER